Nobody would be allowed to decrypt an encrypted virus. If a Anti Virus Company writes software to protect against it or says how to protect against such a virus, it would violate DMCA.
And the second you stepped forward to assert your copyright, you'd get arrested.
Even if you want to argue that by unleashing your virus, you are "self-publishing" your code and that its propogation is violating your copyright, anti-viral programs aren't circumventing a copyright protection, they are doing the opposite-- keeping your "original work" from being "pirated".
An anonymous reader submits: "How about using an external control, made of plastic or metal, to configure your toaster, microwave oven, or even your light-switches? Thanks to Adam Dunkels' "dial", it is no longer necessary to run a VNC server on really small embedded 8-bit microcontrollers commonly found in such devices. The idea is that even low-cost devices that don't have a screen or graphics hardware could have a physical control, like a GUI only in 3-d space, accessible right on the device...But the real question is: who would want to 'configure' their toasters using a physical dial?"
hmm... pass out CDs with Sony's copy control system and Sharpies' to each member of the audience. Explain how to circumvent the copy control on the CD. Ask members of audience to proceed...
Nope. Just telling them how to do it is a violation of the DMCA.
Unless you know of a cache of old films which were shot at multiple partially overlapping angles but taken from the same primary vantage point, the system wouldn't seem to apply at all.
Well, NTSC video has 29.97 frames per second (w/ 2 alternating "fields" per frame). So when the camera is held steady, that's about 30 sample exposures of a particular angle.
The problem with these videos is that not only is the quality blurry, but the color blending is off and sometimes exceeds the lines it should, creating distorted images. I've seen this in a lot of older movies... I wonder if there's a way to correct this.
Many sitcoms and old movies and such which are now presented on video were originally recorded on film. In fact, this is generally the case with most "upscale" shows today. In theory, shows like Seinfeld or I Love Lucy (the first sitcom to pre-shoot 3-cameras of film by the way-- before that, shows like the "Honeymooners" basically filmed live video off a tv set!) could be projected at a much higher resolution than you see on TV, in a theater.
It would be possible to go back and grab the original film negatives of all these shows, scan them into a much higher resolution, and recut them to match the original-- you COULD have very high resolution "Mork & Mindys" and "I Dream of Jeannies" and the like. And that's without using any kind of video enhancement, just rescanning the film at a fuller resolution (you'd also get better colors and more levels of grey that come with film).
Now I haven't read the full article (it's slashdotted to hell), but I wonder whether in many cases you WANT to increase resolution and take video shows up a notch like that.
I mean, in many cases (sitcoms, etc.), when the cinematographer is shooting, he or she is thinking in terms of NTSC video, with all that implies. We may not be meant by the artists to see actor's zits, pancake makeup, cheesy props and sets, and other unwanted details that this could reveal. If we went back to film, I bet we'd start noticing a lot of out-of-focus shots and boom mics and stuff that were never visible on TV, but stick out like a sore thumb at higher resolutions.
Not that I'm saying enhancing or rescanning TV shows is a bad thing, but like colorizing or recutting movies, panning & scanning, etc., you're drastically altering the experience from what the artist had intended.
In most cases this is probably is a perfectly fine thing (especially if you identify what you've changed and not present "Citizen Kane" in full color without caveats), but I guess I'm saying that in some cases we may want to ask ourselves if enhancing a video program beyond the original medium is good idea.
It occurs to me that when security tools such as nmap, or crack or airsnort or SATAN come from places OTHER than the government, they are seen as threats to Internet security. Some people in government even want to make them illegal.
But when the government itself comes out with software to expose security holes, it's called the "Gold Standard".
OSXVNC is fantastic. I know the guy who wrote it, and he's one of those programming prodigies-- as he wrote it, he actually discovered and helped Apple debug some problems they were having with Quartz.
It's solid through-and-through. I've used it for sharing a desktop w/a friend (collaborating) and had absolutely no problems. The VNC clients are great as well.
I'm no expert, but it seems that one of two things will happen:
1. As companies like ACME and budget start to use GPS to track their car's location/speed, there will be a small but inconsequential protest from consumers. Following the initial flurry of objections, other companies will see this as a potential source of revenue and will do it as well. Soon the practice of tracking customer whereabouts will become standard and given no alternative in the market, customers will just have to accept that whenever they rent a car, the company (and others, such as law enforcement or whomever) will know where the car is at all times.
2. As companies like ACME and budget start to use GPS to track their car's location, there will be an overwhelming outpouring of disgust and fury from the consumer, resulting in organized boycotts against the offending companies. Other companies, seeing that the public is outraged by the privacy invasion, will not track their customers for fear of losing business. The practice of tracking customer's whereabouts will not gain traction, and people will be free to drive cross-country to cheat on their spouses without fear of anyone finding out.
The question: Which scenario do you think is more likely, given what you know about modern-day America? Keep in mind that as we speak, an American citizen is being held under arrest indefinately by the government without charges being filed. Everyone knows it, but there is no rioting in the street.
I say if you wanna "get away from it all" in the near future, better walk.
# Q: Can I create a Beowulf cluster using many Simputers?
A: You must be a/.er; in which case you know the answer!
W
Re:I just wish I could talk to these people...
on
RIAA to Sue You Now
·
· Score: 2
It's not because I'm stealing music, I swear I'm not, it's just that I use mp3 to test out music I'm considering purchasing, or to discover bands I never would have dreamed of listening to otherwise.
Using the Internet as a listening station not a legitimate excuse according to the RIAA. According to them, you are stealing music.
If you live in the Phoenix Metro area, this is your big chance to make a great impression, show interest in your local government, and learn something too -- I mean, this is great-- the people who make important decisions about the county's technology are going to be LISTENING to you-- aside from the inevitable rips on Microsoft (easy to do), be sure to play up the cost-benefits and reliability of Linux and *bsd as viable alternatives. Have some printed materials (or CD-ROMs?) to give out.
If you seem too fanatical or "out there", you may scare them off-- it's easy to dismiss a lunatic, even when they're right. So please don't dress like Obiwan;) A well-thought out, reasoned discussion about the benefits of open source software may make a tremendous difference if you can reach the right people and they are truly open to change.
Good luck everyone! Let us know how it works out Monday! Someone call the Arizona Republic and New Times. (And be on the lookout for a counter-offensive from Microsoft).
But that's what people said about the 'inevitable' success of DIVX! That American consumers cared not for the underlying tech, and would buy it if it was offered!
I think the differences are:
1. There was a well-marketed alternative. 2. DVD was a new technology in general. It was not part of a migration path from older technology. 3. Microsoft was not behind DivX.
Don't to roll over and allow your firm to adopt a second-rate (and more expensive) security product simply because they don't trust open source.
If however, they INSIST on a commercial version, please let me know and I'd be happy to take their money. My soon-to-be-created company will charge per copy precisely their budget divided by the number of copies they want.
Support is extra, of course. But source is included.
I mean, he never posted offtopic or anything. It's not like some people haven't been posting the same stuff for years now. If the guy wants to promote or raise awareness about an open source project that's relevent to the current discussion, I say why not. Just as long he doesn't go overboard and start spamming or something.
Don't many dictatorships end in some kind of revolution?
Usually it takes extreme circumstances-- If the dictatorship becomes too oppressive, sooner or later they will be overthrown.
What would it take to overthrow ICANN? I think it would be a tremendous number of egregious crimes that affect a majority of Internet users.
What would an ICANN revolution look like? I don't know. A non-violent overthrow would need a viable replacement, and so far Alternet and new.net don't seem to be getting the traction they need.
Perhaps someone needs to come up with a whole new idea in naming and identifying computers and systems that is technically and practally superior to the current system-- something so compelling that people will choose to use it over ICANN.
I'd be interested in reading suggestions-- what would it take to overthrow ICANN? The Internet is so good at routing around central authorities. So how to bring the power back to the people?
I did read the judgement and I know about the 1943 decision. When I said "compelling" children, I was referring to social pressure to conform, not literally forcing them to say it-- children are given the choice to either conform or protest, which is an inappropriate and difficult position to put a child into.
The phrase "under God" is innocent enough on it's own, but in context, it really does smack of State-endorsed religion. I should qualify that remark by mentioning that I myself believe in God; I am merely stating that I can understand the case made by Dr. Newdow.
Then we're in total agreement.
To those who disagree with this ruling, I only ask if you think it would be appropriate to officially add "without god" to the pledge, and if you would be comfortable simply choosing to not participate in a classroom recitation of this pledge.
If not, what is the reason the government includes one phrase and not the other, if it is not to affirm a religious position?
The main sense in which I've heard the phrase "freedom from religion" used, however, is to say that people have a right not to be exposed to any religious symbology, references, etc, whatsoever. Essentially, religion has no place in public life. With this sentiment, I must wholeheartedly disagree. Freedom "from" religion flies smack in the face of the second half of the establishment clause - "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Again, I'll say-- no one is advocating religion be eliminated from public life. The point is that government should treat all religions and the lack of any religion equally.
By including "under god" in the pledge and compelling children to join in it and take this pledge, the government is, in effect, taking a side in the religious discourse.
Look at it this way-- would it be acceptible to replace "under god" with "under NO god"? Would you feel comfortable having your children swear to "one nation, under no god, indivisible"? Would such a line be appropriate?
If you can articulate why it would be wrong for the government to include this phrase, you might see the point. Because the difference between "under god" and "under no god" involves the judgement of which is religiously or spiritually correct and incorrect, and that's not a discussion the government should be advocating one way or the other.
(I don't quite understand the example two levels up either)
You have two choices in life, you can go with the flow, ie conform, or you can be differnt. Changing the freaking rules is not an option. Why upset the rest of the country for a handful of people? Last time I checked majority rules buddy.
I understand the points. I believe in God. Others don't. According to the religion I practice I know God as one who says "Tell people, but let people use their Free will to decide". But banning the practice of religion is just the same as banning speech and other fundamental rights
Banning the practice of religion is one thing. Compelling an American child to swear their allegance to a nation "under God" is another.
"(I) wouldn't want to let a particularly incensed copyright owner introduce a virus that would disable the computer from which copyrighted works are made available... "
Gee that's sweet of him, but would a law like this permit the RIAA or someone else to write a legal virus that contains its own Gnutella or Morpheous client and offer bogus files (1) to clog up the system, and (2) spread itself?
This would arguably be a kind of legal distributed file-spoofing on a massive scale without technically "disabling" any of the infected machines.
Or, if a virus is too unpalatable, this law might let the RIAA sneak Kazaa file-jamming software into the "bonus" software they include on CDs.
Either way, it would be kind of ironic if the RIAA used distributed methods to attack Kazaa, considering Kazaa built a secret virtual network within their own client.
I see, so you're saying the value of the destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense is that it's a great bluff that got Russia to try to build the same thing...hence Russia collapsed and we didn't.
Hmm. This leads to two questions and a note-- (1) why are we still pushing to build it, and (2) if it was a bluff, why did we actually spend any money on it at all, and (3) you're basically saying that a wasteful, bloated, expensive defense system that won't do anything was loaded with features, not bugs.
Next time, we should propose launching food into space, that'll really screw up them commies. W
Crap.. my message got cut off.. (for some reason, it wouldn't let me do "L"+ampersand+"L" together in a post as three characters-- it cut off.
Let me try again...
---
Wow, either I'm totally spacing or we were isolated here (which I have a hard time believing, being Austin), but I don't recall GBBS... Can you recall any distinguishing features of the interface?
GBBS was a bulletin board written, if I remember right, by L[and]L Software --Lance and Lance??. It used a language called "ACOS" -- a kind of hybrid of BASIC w/o line numbers (edited in a text editor and pre-compiled) that also allowed "modules" to be written that could be loaded into memory and run in real time while the user was connected. A lot of these modules included games and stuff..
Here's an chat transcript with Lance where he talks about some new post-ACOS system I never saw...
It was basically a regular board with a door game that allowed you to challenge either a monster or another user or a progressive "dungeon" mode (basically a sequence of monster fights increasing in difficulty, death resulting in immediate logoff). Basically after a day or maybe five tops, it resulted in the sysop and ONE user taking turns killing each other to the limits of the top user's maxcallsperday.
That sounds about right. I think you could fight monsters to increase your experience points or something. I don't remember though that monopolizing the phone line would help you... I did like the "instant death" aspect of the game though...
Something to remember when we talk about how slow our modems were in those days is that we had relatively small chunks of data to deal with... a complete side of a disk was 360K tops. Even at 1200 baud, that's not THAT bad, and until Ultima 2 or so came out, very few games or applications took more than one side of an SSDD floppy. Aside from the fact that you were usually tying up the entire system at the time, the size of various Stuff made it so that 1200 baud really wasn't unbearable.
Well, for a while before Cat Fur, I was d/ling at 300 baud from AE lines-- where you could hear teh actual bits (after squeezing the phone into the cradle...) and it took about an hour anda half for a DDD (Dalton Disk Disintigrator...:)) side of a disk... and of course you KNOW your mom/sibling is picking up the phone around minute 80. Sigh.
Wow, either I'm totally spacing or we were isolated here (which I have a hard time believing, being Austin), but I don't recall GBBS... Can you recall any distinguishing features of the interface?
GBBS was a bulletin board written, if I remember right, by L) W
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody would be allowed to decrypt an encrypted virus. If a Anti Virus Company writes software to protect against it or says how to protect against such a virus, it would violate DMCA.
And the second you stepped forward to assert your copyright, you'd get arrested.
Even if you want to argue that by unleashing your virus, you are "self-publishing" your code and that its propogation is violating your copyright, anti-viral programs aren't circumventing a copyright protection, they are doing the opposite-- keeping your "original work" from being "pirated".
W
An anonymous reader submits: "How about using an external control, made of plastic or metal, to configure your toaster, microwave oven, or even your light-switches? Thanks to Adam Dunkels' "dial", it is no longer necessary to run a VNC server on really small embedded 8-bit microcontrollers commonly found in such devices. The idea is that even low-cost devices that don't have a screen or graphics hardware could have a physical control, like a GUI only in 3-d space, accessible right on the device...But the real question is: who would want to 'configure' their toasters using a physical dial?"
hmm ... pass out CDs with Sony's copy control system and Sharpies' to each member of the audience. Explain how to circumvent the copy control on the CD. Ask members of audience to proceed ...
Nope. Just telling them how to do it is a violation of the DMCA.
W
Unless you know of a cache of old films which were shot at multiple partially overlapping angles but taken from the same primary vantage point, the system wouldn't seem to apply at all.
Well, NTSC video has 29.97 frames per second (w/ 2 alternating "fields" per frame). So when the camera is held steady, that's about 30 sample exposures of a particular angle.
The problem with these videos is that not only is the quality blurry, but the color blending is off and sometimes exceeds the lines it should, creating distorted images. I've seen this in a lot of older movies... I wonder if there's a way to correct this.
Many sitcoms and old movies and such which are now presented on video were originally recorded on film. In fact, this is generally the case with most "upscale" shows today. In theory, shows like Seinfeld or I Love Lucy (the first sitcom to pre-shoot 3-cameras of film by the way-- before that, shows like the "Honeymooners" basically filmed live video off a tv set!) could be projected at a much higher resolution than you see on TV, in a theater.
It would be possible to go back and grab the original film negatives of all these shows, scan them into a much higher resolution, and recut them to match the original-- you COULD have very high resolution "Mork & Mindys" and "I Dream of Jeannies" and the like. And that's without using any kind of video enhancement, just rescanning the film at a fuller resolution (you'd also get better colors and more levels of grey that come with film).
Now I haven't read the full article (it's slashdotted to hell), but I wonder whether in many cases you WANT to increase resolution and take video shows up a notch like that.
I mean, in many cases (sitcoms, etc.), when the cinematographer is shooting, he or she is thinking in terms of NTSC video, with all that implies. We may not be meant by the artists to see actor's zits, pancake makeup, cheesy props and sets, and other unwanted details that this could reveal. If we went back to film, I bet we'd start noticing a lot of out-of-focus shots and boom mics and stuff that were never visible on TV, but stick out like a sore thumb at higher resolutions.
Not that I'm saying enhancing or rescanning TV shows is a bad thing, but like colorizing or recutting movies, panning & scanning, etc., you're drastically altering the experience from what the artist had intended.
In most cases this is probably is a perfectly fine thing (especially if you identify what you've changed and not present "Citizen Kane" in full color without caveats), but I guess I'm saying that in some cases we may want to ask ourselves if enhancing a video program beyond the original medium is good idea.
W
It occurs to me that when security tools such as nmap, or crack or airsnort or SATAN come from places OTHER than the government, they are seen as threats to Internet security. Some people in government even want to make them illegal.
But when the government itself comes out with software to expose security holes, it's called the "Gold Standard".
What gives?
Cross it off your list.
OSXVNC is fantastic. I know the guy who wrote it, and he's one of those programming prodigies-- as he wrote it, he actually discovered and helped Apple debug some problems they were having with Quartz.
It's solid through-and-through. I've used it for sharing a desktop w/a friend (collaborating) and had absolutely no problems. The VNC clients are great as well.
W
There is an ongoing question of whether or not viruses are "alive". Clearly the fragments of DNA used to reconstruct the polio virus aren't, right?
If the "frankensteined" (a good word here) polio virus replicates and acts in other ways like a regular virus...
Did these guys create life from lifelessness?
W
his assuming that you're alluding to the condition of the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh.
Nope. I'm referring to Jose Padilla.
W
I'm no expert, but it seems that one of two things will happen:
1. As companies like ACME and budget start to use GPS to track their car's location/speed, there will be a small but inconsequential protest from consumers. Following the initial flurry of objections, other companies will see this as a potential source of revenue and will do it as well. Soon the practice of tracking customer whereabouts will become standard and given no alternative in the market, customers will just have to accept that whenever they rent a car, the company (and others, such as law enforcement or whomever) will know where the car is at all times.
2. As companies like ACME and budget start to use GPS to track their car's location, there will be an overwhelming outpouring of disgust and fury from the consumer, resulting in organized boycotts against the offending companies. Other companies, seeing that the public is outraged by the privacy invasion, will not track their customers for fear of losing business. The practice of tracking customer's whereabouts will not gain traction, and people will be free to drive cross-country to cheat on their spouses without fear of anyone finding out.
The question: Which scenario do you think is more likely, given what you know about modern-day America? Keep in mind that as we speak, an American citizen is being held under arrest indefinately by the government without charges being filed. Everyone knows it, but there is no rioting in the street.
I say if you wanna "get away from it all" in the near future, better walk.
W
From the FAQ:
/.er; in which case you know the answer!
# Q: Can I create a Beowulf cluster using many Simputers?
A: You must be a
W
It's not because I'm stealing music, I swear I'm not, it's just that I use mp3 to test out music I'm considering purchasing, or to discover bands I never would have dreamed of listening to otherwise.
Using the Internet as a listening station not a legitimate excuse according to the RIAA. According to them, you are stealing music.
W
If you live in the Phoenix Metro area, this is your big chance to make a great impression, show interest in your local government, and learn something too -- I mean, this is great-- the people who make important decisions about the county's technology are going to be LISTENING to you-- aside from the inevitable rips on Microsoft (easy to do), be sure to play up the cost-benefits and reliability of Linux and *bsd as viable alternatives. Have some printed materials (or CD-ROMs?) to give out.
;) A well-thought out, reasoned discussion about the benefits of open source software may make a tremendous difference if you can reach the right people and they are truly open to change.
If you seem too fanatical or "out there", you may scare them off-- it's easy to dismiss a lunatic, even when they're right. So please don't dress like Obiwan
Good luck everyone! Let us know how it works out Monday! Someone call the Arizona Republic and New Times. (And be on the lookout for a counter-offensive from Microsoft).
W
But that's what people said about the 'inevitable' success of DIVX! That American consumers cared not for the underlying tech, and would buy it if it was offered!
I think the differences are:
1. There was a well-marketed alternative.
2. DVD was a new technology in general. It was not part of a migration path from older technology.
3. Microsoft was not behind DivX.
W
I saved my previous company $60K with OpenSSH
Cool! Like, did the CEO of the company personally walk to your cubicle with his minions and hand you a large oversized check?
They DO do that, right?
W
Don't to roll over and allow your firm to adopt a second-rate (and more expensive) security product simply because they don't trust open source.
If however, they INSIST on a commercial version, please let me know and I'd be happy to take their money. My soon-to-be-created company will charge per copy precisely their budget divided by the number of copies they want.
Support is extra, of course. But source is included.
W
I mean, he never posted offtopic or anything. It's not like some people haven't been posting the same stuff for years now. If the guy wants to promote or raise awareness about an open source project that's relevent to the current discussion, I say why not. Just as long he doesn't go overboard and start spamming or something.
W
Don't many dictatorships end in some kind of revolution?
Usually it takes extreme circumstances-- If the dictatorship becomes too oppressive, sooner or later they will be overthrown.
What would it take to overthrow ICANN? I think it would be a tremendous number of egregious crimes that affect a majority of Internet users.
What would an ICANN revolution look like? I don't know. A non-violent overthrow would need a viable replacement, and so far Alternet and new.net don't seem to be getting the traction they need.
Perhaps someone needs to come up with a whole new idea in naming and identifying computers and systems that is technically and practally superior to the current system-- something so compelling that people will choose to use it over ICANN.
I'd be interested in reading suggestions-- what would it take to overthrow ICANN? The Internet is so good at routing around central authorities. So how to bring the power back to the people?
W
I did read the judgement and I know about the 1943 decision. When I said "compelling" children, I was referring to social pressure to conform, not literally forcing them to say it-- children are given the choice to either conform or protest, which is an inappropriate and difficult position to put a child into.
The phrase "under God" is innocent enough on it's own, but in context, it really does smack of State-endorsed religion. I should qualify that remark by mentioning that I myself believe in God; I am merely stating that I can understand the case made by Dr. Newdow.
Then we're in total agreement.
To those who disagree with this ruling, I only ask if you think it would be appropriate to officially add "without god" to the pledge, and if you would be comfortable simply choosing to not participate in a classroom recitation of this pledge.
If not, what is the reason the government includes one phrase and not the other, if it is not to affirm a religious position?
W
The main sense in which I've heard the phrase "freedom from religion" used, however, is to say that people have a right not to be exposed to any religious symbology, references, etc, whatsoever. Essentially, religion has no place in public life. With this sentiment, I must wholeheartedly disagree. Freedom "from" religion flies smack in the face of the second half of the establishment clause - "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Again, I'll say-- no one is advocating religion be eliminated from public life. The point is that government should treat all religions and the lack of any religion equally.
By including "under god" in the pledge and compelling children to join in it and take this pledge, the government is, in effect, taking a side in the religious discourse.
Look at it this way-- would it be acceptible to replace "under god" with "under NO god"? Would you feel comfortable having your children swear to "one nation, under no god, indivisible"? Would such a line be appropriate?
If you can articulate why it would be wrong for the government to include this phrase, you might see the point. Because the difference between "under god" and "under no god" involves the judgement of which is religiously or spiritually correct and incorrect, and that's not a discussion the government should be advocating one way or the other.
(I don't quite understand the example two levels up either)
W
You have two choices in life, you can go with the flow, ie conform, or you can be differnt. Changing the freaking rules is not an option. Why upset the rest of the country for a handful of people? Last time I checked majority rules buddy.
Didn't King George III say that in about 1776?
W
I understand the points. I believe in God. Others don't. According to the religion I practice I know God as one who says "Tell people, but let people use their Free will to decide". But banning the practice of religion is just the same as banning speech and other fundamental rights
Banning the practice of religion is one thing. Compelling an American child to swear their allegance to a nation "under God" is another.
"(I) wouldn't want to let a particularly incensed copyright owner introduce a virus that would disable the computer from which copyrighted works are made available ... "
Gee that's sweet of him, but would a law like this permit the RIAA or someone else to write a legal virus that contains its own Gnutella or Morpheous client and offer bogus files (1) to clog up the system, and (2) spread itself?
This would arguably be a kind of legal distributed file-spoofing on a massive scale without technically "disabling" any of the infected machines.
Or, if a virus is too unpalatable, this law might let the RIAA sneak Kazaa file-jamming software into the "bonus" software they include on CDs.
Either way, it would be kind of ironic if the RIAA used distributed methods to attack Kazaa, considering Kazaa built a secret virtual network within their own client.
W
I see, so you're saying the value of the destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense is that it's a great bluff that got Russia to try to build the same thing...hence Russia collapsed and we didn't.
Hmm. This leads to two questions and a note-- (1) why are we still pushing to build it, and (2) if it was a bluff, why did we actually spend any money on it at all, and (3) you're basically saying that a wasteful, bloated, expensive defense system that won't do anything was loaded with features, not bugs.
Next time, we should propose launching food into space, that'll really screw up them commies.
W
Crap.. my message got cut off.. (for some reason, it wouldn't let me do "L"+ampersand+"L" together in a post as three characters-- it cut off.
:)) side of a disk... and of course you KNOW your mom/sibling is picking up the phone around minute 80. Sigh.
Let me try again...
---
Wow, either I'm totally spacing or we were isolated here (which I have a hard time believing, being Austin), but I don't recall GBBS... Can you recall any distinguishing features of the interface?
GBBS was a bulletin board written, if I remember right, by L[and]L Software --Lance and Lance??. It used a language called "ACOS" -- a kind of hybrid of BASIC w/o line numbers (edited in a text editor and pre-compiled) that also allowed "modules" to be written that could be loaded into memory and run in real time while the user was connected. A lot of these modules included games and stuff..
Here's an chat transcript with Lance where he talks about some new post-ACOS system I never saw...
It was basically a regular board with a door game that allowed you to challenge either a monster or another user or a progressive "dungeon" mode (basically a sequence of monster fights increasing in difficulty, death resulting in immediate logoff). Basically after a day or maybe five tops, it resulted in the sysop and ONE user taking turns killing each other to the limits of the top user's maxcallsperday.
That sounds about right. I think you could fight monsters to increase your experience points or something. I don't remember though that monopolizing the phone line would help you... I did like the "instant death" aspect of the game though...
Something to remember when we talk about how slow our modems were in those days is that we had relatively small chunks of data to deal with... a complete side of a disk was 360K tops. Even at 1200 baud, that's not THAT bad, and until Ultima 2 or so came out, very few games or applications took more than one side of an SSDD floppy. Aside from the fact that you were usually tying up the entire system at the time, the size of various Stuff made it so that 1200 baud really wasn't unbearable.
Well, for a while before Cat Fur, I was d/ling at 300 baud from AE lines-- where you could hear teh actual bits (after squeezing the phone into the cradle...) and it took about an hour anda half for a DDD (Dalton Disk Disintigrator...
Long live the Beagle Bros. Apple II forever.
;)
W
Wow, either I'm totally spacing or we were isolated here (which I have a hard time believing, being Austin), but I don't recall GBBS... Can you recall any distinguishing features of the interface?
GBBS was a bulletin board written, if I remember right, by L)
W